One afternoon not long ago, I stood in contemplative mood, looking at my library of wild life books. Suddenly I was struck by the fact that the vast majority of those which re not scientific are about the shooting or capturing of wild beasts, and the humans who enter into the stories are the everlasting "brave man, big me" type. I thought what a change it would be to have a book of a totally different kind - one which does not glamourize the big game hunters or make their exploits seem more dangerous in fiction than they are in fact, or the wild animals more ferocious than they really are.

​

I was looking for a book that would tell me what is being done for, as well as against, the wild life of Africa. I would have liked a knowledgeable book, but not one overburdened with technicalities: a book written with understanding and a certain amount of affection, but without undue sentiment; a book full of facts , but not highly statistical; a book full of interesting names of humans, animals and places.

​

I wanted a book which breathed the spirit of Old Africa, the Africa which is fast disappearing. But, glancing at the books of a supposedly popular nature, I was disappointed. Their titles were dominated by words that do not present a true picture of Africa or its wild fauna, and some of them do not belong properly to Africa, or at least to the Africa which I know and have come to think of so highly. There were such inept fords as Fury, Jungle, Killers, Savage, Dark ... a miscellany chosen for sensationalism rather than appropriateness.

​

What I wanted was a book written, so to speak, from the animal's point of view. Did my hopes run too high?

​

Perhaps they did, because in the many wild life books in my library, and countless others which I have seen, the authors have failed or have not even attempted to present the problems of life as they affect the wild beasts.

​

Why is this? Is it entirely due to the fact that wild beasts have no means of conveying their feelings to man, and furthermore are without the slender contact which exists between domestic pets and their owners?

​

Whatever the cause, I shall always believe that there is not such a wide gulf between humans and wild beasts that it cannot be bridged. That is, if we are willing to bring animal and human reactions to a common level, which is not as difficult a task as we may think. After all, wild animals are not so very different from humans. They have a similar instinct for freedom and self-preservation, though not the same capacity for self-determination or survival. Some of them have an almost human inquisitiveness, and, like human beings, they can be hopeful one minute, fearful another. In fact, if we wish to know how wild beasts will react, we have only to be the impartial judges of our own animal natures.

​

I have tried to bear these facts in mind while writing this book, which is an attempt to meet my own needs and at the same time fill a void for those who feel, like me, that there has been for too long a prevalence of one or the other of two unreasonable attitudes. The most common of these is to kill without any sense of compassion or restraint: the other is to preserve without regard for the consequences, even when the interests of a farming community are at stake.

​

On the grounds that an uncompromising stand is neither complimentary nor helpful, what is a reasonable attitude to adopt? Ah now we are getting somewhere, and I suggest the following:

We should attempt either to preserve in a sane and practicable way or to kill discriminately and with intent. In other words, we should seek to preserve in the natural wild state, or as near as possible to the truly wild state, or kill as swiftly and surely as possible for some practical reason - to put a wounded or trapped animal out of pain; as a necessary measure of control; because there is need for meat, or to further the knowledge of mankind. I dislike the preservationist who parades a lion cub on a lead as much as I abhor the big game hunter or self-styled sportsman who shoots for no other purpose than to gratify a purely selfish whim, and who poses with his chest stuck out beside his 'bag' - which, in very many instances, has been shot for him by his hired professional hunter.

 

Both parties - the irresponsible killers and the unrestrained preservationists - need to come to some sort of compromise, but in order to do this they must first of all begin to understand the wild beasts and their ways. A book of this kind may help, and it is hoped that it may also serve to foster a true regard for what some of us call with affection Old Africa.

​

Old Africa! The words cast a spell of their own. They conjure a picture of unspoilt Africa, an Africa running wild when all other lands have been tamed or broken. They call to mind something without equal, which belongs to no other country in the world. The national monuments and wilderness areas of America, the national parks and playing fields of England, and their equivalents in other countries which cherish a link with the past, may have similar beauty, grandeur, or ruggedness, but in one respect they do not bear comparison with the remote, unsettled parts of Africa.

​

The only difference, but a significant one, is that they have not the variety or quantity of wild life which is an inseparable part of unspoilt Africa, and the reason for its incomparable allure.

​

So when we dream of an Africa untamed, which nestles unrepressed, quiet, secretive, and almost elusive in our thoughts, we bring to mind also the irrepressible leopard, the quiet giraffe, the secretive bongo and the elusive situtunga. If these wild creatures, or any of their kind, should be exterminated from the African scene, and dissociated from our thoughts of Africa, then something will be lost which cannot be replaced. If this should happen, the spell of Old Africa will be broken and its enchantment will fade.

​

Earl L. Denman